Re: Support for Slony 2.0?
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Support for Slony 2.0? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTikH=S2SF=B7LDYYeM6xLFoBU12NLeXsQZ8XxJXj@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Support for Slony 2.0? (Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info>) |
Список | pgadmin-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 22:17, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: > Le 19/01/2011 21:36, Magnus Hagander a écrit : >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 21:19, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I want to know if we still want to support Slony. I was working on >>> fixing an issue with our support of Slony till I finally understood we >>> don't have any support of Slony 2.0. >>> >>> I remember that some of us wanted to get rid of our Slony support. I'm >>> all to keep it. I think this is the kind of things that makes pgAdmin >>> special. >> >> Do you know anybody who actually use it? :-) >> > > I know at least two that complained about it not being 2.0 aware. Not > sure they use it really, but the big error message we have is not good. :-) True. > One easy way to fix 1.12 is to add a "We don't support Slony 2.0." > message when one clicks on the replication node, and to stop showing > nodes below it. Well, for backport, that seems reasonable. > But we need something for 1.14 or later: either get rid of all, or > support all. Agreed. >> I'm +1 for keeping it as long as it doesn't take a lot of work to >> maintain it, but if it does I htink that time is better spent >> elsewhere. But in the end, it's up to whomever wants to spend the >> time. If it's not actually *broken* now, that means it didn't really >> require much maintenance before, because I don't recall seeing a lot >> of "fix slony support" commits. >> > > I think Slony 1.2 is working. At least, I haven't seen any bug reports. > Slony 2.0 doesn't. Ok. >> Oh, and if we're doing much work on it, how about renaming it from >> "Replication" to "slony replication" or such? So people won't confuse >> it with streaming replication which is what most people will think we >> mean with "replication" in the future, I think. >> > > You mean when 9.2 or 9.3 will be released? when we'll have all those > admin and monitoring capacities? :-D yeah, I know, you're doing quite a > lof of great stuff to make that happen now (now like "in 9.1"). Well, > actually, I do believe this isn't the end of Slony. Not now, not > tomorrow, not still in two years from now. No, I mean *today*. Given that a lot of people have said "9.0 is the replicatoin release", people are probably already reacting to it. > To answer the question, yeah, we could rename it till we need it for > another kind of replication (the streaming one for instance). I think we should rename it even if we don't have another option - simply because *postgresql* has another option. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgadmin-hackers по дате отправления: